基于细胞色素b的鸫亚科部分鸟类的系统进化

采用分子系统学方法对鸫亚科(Turdinae)16属35种鸟类的线粒体细胞色素b基因进行系统发生分析。所测序列经对位排列后共983bp,包含变异位点399个,简约信息位点349个。以太平鸟(Bombycillagarrulus)和雪松太平鸟(Bombycillacedrorum)为外群,采用邻接法、最大简约法、最大似然法和贝叶斯法分别构建鸫亚科的系统发生树。研究结果表明:构建的系统树将所研究鸫亚科鸟类分为2个支系。第1个支系包括鸫属(Turdus)、地鸫属(Zoothera)和宽嘴鸫属(Cochoa);第2个支系包括歌鸲属(Luscinia)、鸲属(Tarsiger)、鹊鸲属(Copsychus)、薮鸲属(Cercotrichas)、红尾鸲属(Phoenicurus)、水鸲属(Rhyacornis)、燕尾属(Enivurus)、啸鸫属(Myiophoneus)、石属(Saxicola)、属(Oenanthe)、溪鸲属(Chaimarrornis)、矶鸫属(Monticola)和欧亚鸲属(Erithacus)。其中地鸫属并非单系类群;红尾鸲属为并系发生,水鸲属和溪鸲属归并到这一支系;石属与矶鸫属互为姐妹群,再与属聚合构成另一支系;然后上述两个支系构成姐妹群;歌鸲属和鸲属聚成姐妹群。对于鹊鸲属、薮鸲属、啸鸫属、欧亚鸲属、宽嘴鸫属和燕尾属,本研究结果并没有完全解决它们在大分支内与其它属间的亲缘关系     

蓝额地鸲分布记述

<正>蓝额地鸲Cinclidium frontale为雀形目鸫科地鸲属鸟类(郑光美,2011),曾记为鹟科鸫亚科长脚鸲属蓝额长脚地鸲Callene frontale(张俊范,郑作新,1963)。国外见于印度、尼泊尔、不丹、老挝、越南(郑作新等,1995)。在国内的分布,马敬能等(2000)表明四川亚种Cinclidium f.orientale记录于四川石棉大渡河、云南南部,指名亚种C.f.frontale可能见于西藏东南部;郑光美     

基于核基因c-mos的鸫亚科部分鸟类系统发生关系

采用分子系统学方法对鸫亚科Turdinae 11属21种鸟类的核基因c-mos进行了系统发生分析.所测序列经对位排列后共572个位点,其中核苷酸变异位点111个,简约信息位点71个.以太平鸟Bombycilla garrulus作外群,采用邻接法、最大简约法和最大似然法分别构建其系统发生树.重建的系统发生树显示:所研究鸫亚科21种鸟类分成2个支系,第1个支系包括鸫属Turdus和地鸫属Zoothera.第2个支系包括红尾鸲属Phoenicurus、矶鸫属Monticola、水鸲属Rhyacornis、鸲属Tarsiger、溪鸲属Chainarrornis、石即鸟属Saxicola、燕尾属Enivurus、歌鸲属Luscinia和鹊鸲属Copsychus.红尾鸲属为并系类群,水鸲属和溪鸲属聚到这一支系;歌鸲属与燕尾属互为姐妹群,再与鸲属聚合构成另一支系;宝兴歌鸫Turdus mupinensis独立于鸫属及地鸫属之外,形成单独一个分支.     

雪Xiao及其不同组织乳酸脱氢酶研究

雪xiao(Nyctea scandiaca)隶属鸲形目，鸲鸲科，雪xiao属。成体是一种大形白色xiao类。雪xiao主要分布及繁殖地不在我国，仅是我国北方少数地区的冬候鸟，属保护动物。由于数量稀少，材料难以获得，国内研究尚属空白。为了充分利用较珍贵的活体新鲜材料，为其生物学研究积累有用的基础资料，我们作了雪xiao不同组织乳酸同工酶聚焦电泳分析。     

陕西秦岭南坡发现白眉林鸲

正白眉林鸲(Tarsiger indicus)为雀形目鹟科鸲属的鸟类,分布于印度、尼泊尔、不丹、缅甸、越南以及我国的四川、云南、西藏、台湾等地,在中国西南部栖息于海拔2 400~4 300 m的高山岩谷间针叶林或落叶林间(约翰·马敬能等2000)。2017年6月20日在陕西佛坪国家级自然保护区的三个包营房(33°41′43′′N,107°49′31′′E,     

红胁蓝尾鸲(Tarsiger cyanurus)在中国东北部帽儿山地区的迁徙中途停歇生态

中国迁徙鸣禽类的保护面对着与世界其他地区如欧洲和北美洲鸟类保护相似的挑战。迁徙鸣禽类具有复杂生活周期和很大的空间关联。迁徙过程中发生的事件对迁徙鸣禽类种群动态具有决定作用。对于鸣禽类迁徙中途停歇期的生态,比如停歇期的长短,能量的积累,生境的利用等,了解还非常有限。在中国东北部的一个鸟类迁徙停歇地对红胁蓝尾鸲(Tarsiger cyanurus)的中途停歇生态包括迁徙时间、停歇时间、能量状态和性比进行了研究。2002年秋和2003年春分别捕获了1751只和684只红胁蓝尾鸲。红胁蓝尾鸲的体重在秋季迁徙时要比在春季迁徙时重。春季雌性红胁蓝尾鸲停歇时的能量状态指数最低; 而秋季的红胁蓝尾鸲比春季的红胁蓝尾鸲停歇时间更长。无论季节和性别,红胁蓝尾鸲的能量状态指数和第1次捕获的时间早晚成正相关, 间接证明红胁蓝尾鸲在停歇期间能够比较快地积累能量。秋季雄性红胁蓝尾鸲日体重净增率最大。估测秋季停歇期的每日能量净增能维持红胁蓝尾鸲雌性0.6h和雄性3.1h的飞行。红胁蓝尾鸲的中途停歇生态与北美和欧洲一些迁徙鸣禽类很相似。比如,春季迁徙过境的时间和脂肪积累的变化与自然选择对雄性的要求：当食物和气候适宜时尽快到达繁殖地的假设是一致的。对迁徙中途的停歇生态研究有利于更好地了解鸟类的迁徙行为和更有效地保护迁徙鸣禽类。     

鹰鹃对白腹短翅鸲的巢寄生

2015年4~8月,在贵州宽阔水国家级自然保护区,记录到1巢白腹短翅鸲(Hodgsonius phaenicuroides)被鹰鹃(Cuculus sparverioides)寄生,寄生率为1/16(n=16)。发现时白腹短翅鸲巢内有1枚白色的寄生卵和2枚蓝色的寄主卵,且卵已凉,疑为亲鸟弃巢。鹰鹃卵重6.09 g,卵大小20.20 mm×27.73 mm;两枚白腹短翅鸲的卵重分别为2.34 g和2.40 g,大小分别为20.05 mm×14.94 mm和19.95 mm×15.09 mm。鹰鹃的卵重量(6.09 g)和大小(27.73 mm×20.20 mm)均明显大于白腹短翅鸲的卵。卵色光谱测量结果表明,鹰鹃和白腹短翅鸲卵色的反射光谱图差别明显,鹰鹃卵在色度和色调上明显低于白腹短翅鸲,但卵色亮度却明显比白腹短翅鸲卵高,为典型的非模拟寄生卵。     

北红尾鸲的鸟巢行为观察

北红尾鸲的鸟巢行为观察张晏,谭亚娣（清化大学生物系９１级北京１０００８４）北红尾鸲Ｐｈｏｅｎｉｃｕｒｕｓａｕｒｏｃｕｓａｕｒｏｒｅｕｓ（Ｐａｌｌａｓ）属雀形目,鸫科,红尾鸲属,英文名为ＤａｕｒｉａｎＲｅｄｓｔａｒｔ。１９９３年６月２７日至７月５日我们...     

东北地区北红尾鸲巢址选择及繁殖成效

北红尾鸲(Phoenicurus auroreus)是一种分布广泛的小型雀形目鸟类,主要分布于南亚东北部,东南亚北部、东亚及俄罗斯等地区,我国东北、华北、华中至西南等地也均有分布,是重要的食虫益鸟。为探究北红尾鸲巢址选择的影响因素,找到影响北红尾鸲繁殖成功率的主要巢址因子,于2017年4—7月,在辽宁仙人洞国家级自然保护区开展系统研究。共发现北红尾鸲自然巢44个,其中29巢繁殖成功,15巢繁殖失败。北红尾鸲主要筑巢于石墙缝、空心砖墙缝及废旧电表箱中。巢址参数的主成分分析结果表明:巢口因子(27.738%)、巢位因子(14.195%)、光照因子(12.145%)、人为干扰因子(10.440%)、安全因子(9.266%)和隐蔽因子(7.187%)是影响北红尾鸲巢址选择的重要因子。采用二元逻辑斯蒂回归分析繁殖成功巢与失败巢参数发现,成功巢的巢口最大高度显著小于失败巢(P=0.047),且其距顶的距离更近(P=0.043)。多元线性回归分析表明,巢上方盖度对繁殖成功率有极显著影响(t=2.883,P=0.009)。总的来说,北红尾鸲虽偏爱筑巢于人为干扰较大的村庄房屋附近,但较小的巢口能有效避免巢捕食者的捕食,更近的距顶距离和更大的巢上方盖度能有效降低巢上方的可视程度和降水等不利因素的影响,从而提高繁殖成功率。     

大杜鹃在白腹短翅鸲巢中寄生繁殖

2009年至2012年期间,在甘肃莲花山自然保护区共发现91个白腹短翅鸲(Hodgsonius phaenicuroides)巢,其中15巢被大杜鹃(Cuculus canorus)寄生,寄生率为16.48%。根据对13枚寄生的大杜鹃卵的观察,其中12枚卵色为浅蓝色,与白腹短翅鸲的深蓝绿色卵差异明显,仅1枚与白腹短翅鸲卵色一致。大杜鹃与白腹短翅鸲的卵重(t =11.208, df=38, P<0.001)和卵短径(t=0.970,df=38, P<0.001)差异极显著。白腹短翅鸲具有识别大杜鹃卵的能力,15巢中只有4巢接受寄生卵并继续孵化,7巢成功识别,剩余4巢无法确定是否识别。白腹短翅鸲为雌鸟单独孵卵,推测识别大杜鹃卵可能只与雌鸟有关。     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor